Office of Management and Budget
About OMB
President's Budget
Management
Information &
Regulatory Affairs
Legislative Information
Agency Information

May 2, 1997
(House)


H.R. 478 - Flood Prevention and Family Protection Act of 1997
(Rep. Herger (R) CA and 24 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 478 because it would exempt all flood control projects from "consultation" and "takings" requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Administration clearly supports minimizing flood damages and protecting the residents living in flood prone areas, but does not believe that H.R. 478 will achieve these goals. Because of the severe economic and environmental impacts that would be caused by H.R. 478, the Secretary of the Interior would recommend that the President veto the bill in its current form.

H.R. 478 would waive ESA requirements in a broad range of non-emergency situations, including routine operation and maintenance of flood control projects. For example, the broad ESA exemption under H.R. 478 could apply to prominent dams such as Hoover and Grand Coulee or any hydropower facility with associated flood control benefits. H.R. 478 could have potentially disastrous environmental consequences with little project benefits.

The administration of ESA by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service has not resulted in significant delays in construction or proper maintenance of flood control facilities. Effective emergency procedures are already utilized to deal with the ESA and other environmental requirements during flood emergencies. For example, during the recent California flooding, FWS implemented ESA provisions which allowed emergency actions in disaster areas to be taken quickly without the Act's normal "prior consultation" requirements.

Under H.R. 478, virtually all Federal and non-Federal projects in the Columbia River basin would arguably be exempt from ESA requirements. Since these projects would no longer be required to protect endangered fish stocks, such as Pacific salmon, other public agencies and the private sector would have to significantly increase their conservation efforts to compensate for the expected loss of important fishery resources. This could have severe, long-term economic impacts for the logging, mining, irrigation, navigation, water supply, recreation, and commercial fishing industries in the region. These developments could be repeated in other regions of the country.